Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
City consultant tells Senate Finance existing law already fixes Burlington waterfront TIF but offers drafting tweaks
Loading...
Summary
David White, Burlington's TIF consultant, told the Senate Finance Committee the statutory baseline and allocation for the Waterfront TIF are clear under Acts 45 (2011) and 134 (2016), but he offered optional drafting language (moving the base to fiscal 1997 and specifying a 75% education-increment retention) to address an auditor's request; the committee will hear the auditor and legislative counsel next.
David White, a consultant to the City of Burlington, told the Senate Finance Committee that the current statute governing Burlington's Waterfront tax-increment financing (TIF) district already sets the baseline year and allocation percentages but that the state auditor had asked the legislature to clarify the record.
"I don't quite understand why we're here," White said in his presentation, noting the rules of statutory construction and a history of legislative action that, in his view, leave the baseline and retention percentages unambiguous. He traced the framework to Act 45 (2011), which grandfathered increments created through 2010, and to Act 134 (2016), which allowed Burlington to extend the Waterfront TIF to 2035 for three parcels.
White said the practical impact of clarifying language would be small. Using conservative modeling that assumes only two current buildings are completed and no additional redevelopment on a parcel still controlled by a private owner, he estimated the draft clarification would increase payments to the education fund by about $16,000–$17,000 per year (roughly $150,000 over the remaining life of the district) and that the TIF would still project roughly a $4 million surplus by 2035.
White proposed concrete drafting language to specify a 75% retention of the education tax increment going forward and to set the base value date at 04/01/1996 (fiscal 1997), acknowledging legislative counsel could refine the wording. He told senators the city would also accept moving to a 1997 base and forgoing some grandfathered 100% retention if lawmakers prefer that approach.
Committee members said they had received an auditor letter raising the baseline question and that the auditor would be invited to testify. Several senators and staff noted the house committee's draft is largely intent language; witnesses from the city and legislative counsel said they do not believe current practice changes the education fund's projected receipts materially but were willing to modify statutory text if the legislature prefers explicit clarity.
Next steps: the committee plans to call the state auditor and legislative counsel for further testimony and to consider drafting amendments that capture White's suggested clarifications.
